Five Things Real Estate Agents Need To Know Before August

Dirt lawyers: Educate your real estate agents!

Our company has developed resources to equip dirt lawyers to educate real estate agents about how the CFPB will impact them beginning August 1. I’m sharing a few tips with the letstalkdirtsc.com audience because everyone will benefit if real estate agents are prepared.

This is a primer, a very basic beginning point. The CFPB will not significantly impact the day-to-day processing of sales, but buyers and sellers will look to real estate agents for general information about the new rules and forms, as well as the impact on the loan process and the closing. As the software companies complete their updates, everyone involved will be trained on the details of the Loan Estimates and Closing Disclosures. For now, let’s give real estate agents the following information.

They should be able to explain the Loan Estimate and Closing Disclosure before August 1. The Good Faith Estimate (GFE), a form required by the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), and the initial Truth-in-Lending disclosure (TIL), a form required by the Truth-in-Lending Act (TILA) have been combined into a new form, the Loan Estimate. For loan applications taken on or after August 1, the three-page Loan Estimate will replace the GFE and the TIL and must be delivered within three business days of the application. The new five-page Closing Disclosure will replace the HUD-1 Settlement Statement and the final TILA form.

The timing of a closing will be impacted by Closing Disclosure delivery. The CFPB has determined that borrowers will be better served by having three days after receipt to review the Closing Disclosure prior to the closing. Absent a positive confirmation of receipt of the form (i.e., hand delivery), the form is “deemed received” three days after the delivery process is started (i.e., mailing). Several lenders have already announced that they will deliver the forms six days prior to closing.

Title fees may need to be adjusted at closing and explained. The full premium for the lender’s title policy must be reflected on the Loan Estimate and the Closing Disclosure despite the fact that we have a “simultaneous issue” discount in our filed rates in South Carolina. The discount that title insurance companies in South Carolina offer lenders must be deducted from the charge for the owner’s policy. Also, the owner’s policy will be shown as “optional” on both documents. Closing attorneys may look to real estate agents to assist them in explaining the value of owner’s title insurance.

Line numbers have been removed and there are now seven fee areas on the Closing Disclosure. The familiar line numbering on the HUD-1 will disappear. Instead, the fees and charges are placed on the Closing Disclosure in one of seven areas:

Origination charges;
Services borrower did not shop for;
Services borrower did shop for;
Taxes and other government fees;
Pre-paids;
Initial escrow payment at closing; and
Other.

Individual charges within each of these major groupings are listed alphabetically. Columns are provided to separate charges owed by the buyer, seller and others, as well as columns for payments before and at closing.

Clients will likely receive more than one Closing Disclosure. Since the buyer will receive the Closing Disclosure several days before the closing (and likely before the walk-through), the buyer will likely receive a new, adjusted Closing Disclosure at the closing. The CFPB has also mandated that changes in the financial numbers in any amount, must be re-disclosed, even post-closing.

Good luck educating your referral sources!

More CFPB News: A Possible Deadline Extension and a Useful Toolkit

Don’t get excited about the rumor!

When Steven Antonakes of the CFPB spoke to a group of consumer bankers on March 25, he initiated a series of news articles and fueled a rumor mill among bankers and others that the August 1, 2015 date for implementation of the new integrated mortgage disclosures might be extended.

Mr. Antonakes was responding to a concern that some industry vendors may not be ready for the deadline.

Here’s the quote that caused the ruckus: “To the extent there is new information or we’re hearing directly from vendors that folks aren’t going to be ready…we should continue to talk about that. I can’t promise you (changes) but to the extent we will have a better understanding of the concerns, that is something we will consider.”

Lenders and others unquestionably got their hopes up that the August 1 date would be extended. But CFPB spokesman Sam Gilford quickly stated that the bureau has no current plans to delay implementation.

And Michele Korsmo, CEO of America Land Title Association said in an ALTA Advocacy Update of March 30, “Before anyone gets excited, I am telling you today that implementation of the new Integrated Mortgage disclosures will be required on August 1^st, 2015.”

Don’t count on the deadline being extended. Get ready!

Lenders continue to hope for leniency in the enforcement for a period of time after August 1, but no strategy for lenience has been implemented to date.

In other CFPB news, the bureau recently released a “Know Before You Owe” home loan toolkit, a comprehensive step-by-step guide to help consumers understand the closing process. The toolkit contains interactive worksheets and tips for obtaining additional information. I encourage closing attorneys to use this guide to educate clients.

We have all been concerned about owner’s title insurance being called “optional” in the new disclosures. I was encouraged to see that this toolkit contains positive information about title insurance, including the fact that title insurance can safeguard the owner’s financial investment. Common claims were stated to be outstanding taxes and mechanics’ liens.

This toolkit might be a good tool for all of us!

SC Supreme Court Expands Attorney Liability

Erika Fabian, the niece of a wealthy South Carolina doctor brought suit against her uncle’s estate planning attorneys for professional negligence and breach of contract in Fabian v. Lindsay, 410 S.C. 475, 765 S.E.2d 132, an October 2014 case decided by the South Carolina Supreme Court. The case had been dismissed in the circuit court for failure to state a cause of action on the grounds that there was no attorney-client relationship and no privity.

The facts were viewed in the light most favorable to Ms. Fabian. She alleged that her uncle, Denis Fabian, had signed a trust agreement drafted by his attorneys when he was around 80 years old, leaving his wife, who was about 20 years younger, a life interest. Remainder beneficiaries included his wife’s two daughters from a prior marriage, Dr. Fabian’s one living brother, Eli Fabian, who was in his 70’s and not in good health, and two nieces, Miriam Fabian, Eli’s daughter, and Erika Fabian, the daughter of a predeceased brother.

Erika had been told by her uncle and his wife that when his wife passed away, one half of the estate would be distributed to Mrs. Fabian’s daughters, and the other half would be distributed to Dr. Fabian’s nieces.

Dr. Fabian died in early 2000, and his brother died a few weeks later. The trust was valued at approximately $13 million.

After Dr. Fabian’s death, his estate planners mailed a letter and two pages of the trust agreement to Ms. Fabian informing her that she would not be receiving anything from the estate. Instead, her cousin Miriam would inherit as Eli’s only heir. Erika alleged that a drafting error resulted in an unexpected windfall to her cousin.

The Court took a huge leap, joined the vast majority of states, and recognized causes of action, both in tort and contract, by a third-party beneficiary of an existing will or estate planning document against a lawyer whose drafting error defeats or diminishes the client’s intent. Recovery under either cause of action was limited to individuals named in the estate planning document or otherwise identified in the instrument by their status.

Interestingly, the Court stated that its decision did not place an undue burden on estate planning attorneys because it merely puts them in the same position as most other attorneys by making them responsible for their professional negligence.

Ms. Fabian had argued that an estate planning lawyer’s negligence impacts three potential classes of plaintiffs: (1) the client, who is deceased; (2) the client’s estate, which lacks a cause of action or damages or both; and (3) the intended beneficiaries, the only possible plaintiffs who might suffer harm. If no cause of action is available for the beneficiaries, the negligent drafting lawyer is effectively immune from liability.

Also interesting was the Court’s application of the new rule to cases on appeal as of the date of the opinion. In a separate opinion, Justice Pleicones stated that the new rule should only apply prospectively because this case creates new liability where formerly none existed.

While not technically a dirt case, real estate practitioners should take note of the court’s inclination to favor third-party beneficiaries and reflect whether the Justices’ thought process could affect our world.

Lenders’ Closing Plans Solidify As August 1 Approaches

news news news Citibank recently notified settlement agents (closing attorneys in South Carolina) that they will be requested to register with the FPSDirect Vendor Website at the time they agree to handle a Citibank closing. This website was created to provide the bank’s settlement agents with an easy and efficient method of loan document delivery, closing date confirmation and funding approval, among other matters. The memo stated the bank’s goal is to save the time of faxing and the insecurity of email.

Wells Fargo issued a Settlement Agent Communication on March 16 indicating that, like Bank of America, it plans to integrate with Closing Insight™ with a goal of improving the way instructions, fees and other information is shared. The memo stated: “Unlike today where we typically use email to pass these important details back and forth, Closing Insight™ will support an interactive, online collaboration that includes a full view of information from both parties, and provides an audit trail and quality checks to reduce errors.”

We have learned and the Wells Fargo communication states that many closing attorneys will be able to access Closing Insight™ through connections with their existing software packages. Wells’ communication also states that attorneys without closing software packages will not be left out because a secure web portal will be available. Wells reiterated its goal of continuing to do business with local service providers, but emphasized that it expects closing attorneys to be ready, willing and able to comply with requirements and closing instructions.

Wells Fargo also answered four recent FAQs:

“If co-borrowers plan to sign the loan documents on different dates, which date applies for compliance with the three business day receipt requirement of the CD? The borrower’s CD must have been received not less than three business days before the earliest signing date. This question highlights the importance of communicating specifics about signing plans to your Wells Fargo closing contact, including cases when a mobile signing agent or mail away signing is being requested.

Will Wells Fargo be providing loan closing documents to the settlement agent at the same time the borrower’s CD is delivered? Our goal is to provide the closing documents to the settlement agent shortly after the borrower’s CD has been finalized and provided to the borrower. In most cases, you should receive the closing documents earlier than in the past.

Will Wells Fargo permit any other party to deliver the borrower’s CD to meet the three business day closing requirement for a rush closing situation? No. We have determined that we must be responsible for delivering the borrower’s CD to meet and track the three business day receipt requirement for all transactions We will continue to encourage all parties involved to stay in close communication and work together proactively to minimize the need for expedited CD delivery.

Is my company required to be ALTA Best Practices Certified by August 1 to continue to close Wells Fargo loans? No. Completing your certification by August 1 will not be a Wells Fargo requirement. However, we hope that if your company is not yet certified you will – at minimum – have already completed a self-assessment and addressed any identified gaps. As communicated in our March 6, 2014, newsletter, Wells Fargo supports the ALTA Best Practices as sound business practices that should ideally already be in place for businesses providing title and closing services to our customers.”

Wells Fargo also stated that it has entered into a business arrangement with ClosingCorp, a leading provider of fee management solutions, to obtain actual fee information from selected settlement agents who closing a high number of Wells Fargo loans.

Lenders Announce They Will Control More of the Residential Closing Process

Regional bank will require third-party BP certifications on a short time frame!

Let’s take the big bank first. Bank of America recently shared more details about changes in its closing processes after August 1, 2015. In addition to delivering Closing Disclosures, BofA will take the responsibility for complying with the three-business day waiting period. It will not require closing attorneys to monitor the timing of the delivery of the initial CD or any required re-disclosures.

BofA stated that close collaboration will be needed with closing attorneys for requests of information and notices of all loan and fee changes through its selected platform, RealEC® Technologies Closing Insight™. Closing attorneys will be notified of re-disclosure requirements and new closing dates through Closing Insight™.

BofA said it expects to engage closing attorneys to begin fee collaboration a minimum of ten calendar days prior to closing, and it intends to generate and send the CD six business days prior to closing.*

Now let’s look at an interesting announcement from a small bank, and please pay attention to the short time frame.

Mississippi based regional BancorpSouth announced in early March that its approved closing must comply with ALTA’s Best Practices through a certification from an independent third party vendor acceptable to the bank. Self-certifications will not be accepted.

The announcement stated that Memphis Consumer Credit Association and many of the large accounting firms have agreed to provide the certification. The bank asked closing attorneys to advise by March 23 whether they intend to obtain the certification. And the deadline for obtaining the certification was stated to be July 31.

*In almost all South Carolina transactions, we expect the “consummation date” to be the same as the closing date and the same as the date BofA refers to in this memorandum as the signing date.

Three Lenders Make CFPB Announcements

Two additional lenders will deliver the borrower’s Closing Disclosure

Citi and Chase have joined Well Fargo and Bank of America by announcing that they will deliver borrowers’ Closing Disclosures after the CFPB rules take effect on August 1, 2015.

Citi’s announcement was made on January 28, 2015, followed by Chase’s announcement on February 26. Both lenders stated that closing attorneys will continue to be responsible for sellers’ Closing Disclosures in purchase transactions. Closing attorneys will be required to deliver copies of sellers’ Closing Disclosures to the respective lender.

Citi’s announcement shared some information with its settlement agents that has previously been made clear by the rule itself. That is, there will be several weeks or months after August 1 when the old forms will be used because it is the application date as of August 1 that triggers the use of the new forms, and early use of the Closing Disclosure is not allowed. Citi also pointed out that the new rules do not apply to home equity loans.

Closing attorneys should note that their software systems will have to accommodate old and new versions of the forms because of the transition and because all loans will not be subject to the new rules.

Union Bank announced on February 26 that it will use the web-based tool Closing Insight™ to simplify the multi-party closing process and support efforts to ensure regulatory compliance. The announcement stated that no other means of communication or document delivery will be accepted.

We will continue to read and keep you informed!

Collaboration is King!

ALTA’s CFPB webinar emphasizes that the exchange of data will be the biggest challenge to the closing process after August 1, 2015.

American Land Title Association’s value to closing attorneys grows each day as August 1, 2015 approaches. Closing forms will change dramatically later this year, and ALTA is valiantly attempting to keep those of us who plan to remain in this game ahead of the learning curve.

South Carolina has strong representation in ALTA! Cynthia Blair, a real estate attorney in Columbia, sits on ALTA’s board and participated in this webinar. Each time Cynthia said, “In my state” we knew we were about to receive information specific to us. This local support at this critical time is invaluable, and I strongly encourage South Carolina closing attorneys to join ALTA.

Yesterday, ALTA hosted an excellent webinar entitled “5 Key Areas to Prime Your Operation for the New Closing Process”. The webinar was attended by more than 1,100 of us! The strong message was “Collaboration is King”.

Closing attorneys and lenders will work more closely together than ever to manage and share information. Some lenders have indicated they will deliver the Closing Disclosure to the borrower, but others will require the closing attorney to deliver it. The seller’s form will be prepared by the closing attorney, and a copy of it must be provided to the lender.

The underlying information for the closing documents will be located in two systems: (1) the lenders’ loan origination systems (LOS) will contain the loan-centric information; and (2) the closing attorney’s systems (sometimes referred to as the “title platform”) will contain the property-centric information. Large lenders are likely to utilize entirely electronic systems that will avoid rekeying of information to reduce the possibility of errors. The two systems will talk to each other via platforms that are now being developed.

Attorney Fakes Title Insurance Documents and Gets Disbarred

Think you’ve heard it all? Listen to this!

The South Carolina Supreme Court disbarred a lawyer last month for fraudulently producing title insurance commitments and policies.*

By way of background, the vast majority of real estate lawyers in South Carolina are also licensed as title insurance company agents. In other parts of the country, lenders receive title insurance documents directly from title companies’ direct operations. In South Carolina, title companies run agency operations, supporting their networks of agents, almost all of whom are South Carolina licensed attorneys.

Lenders require closing protection letters for closings involving agents. Stated simply, these letters inform lenders that the insurer may be responsible in the event a closing is handled improperly by the closing attorney.

Title insurance company agents also produce title insurance policies and commitments, following the guidelines of their insurance underwriters, and using software programs designed to support the production of these documents.

Some closing attorneys are not agents but instead act as approved attorneys for title insurance companies. Approved attorneys can obtain closing protection letters from their title companies, but they are not able to issue their own title insurance documents. Instead, they certify title to a title insurance company or to a title company’s agent.

If an attorney cannot provide lenders with closing protection letters, that attorney generally cannot close mortgage loans in South Carolina.

In 2007, Mr. Davis was canceled as an agent by his title insurance company.** After that cancelation, he was able to legitimately obtain title insurance commitments and policies through an agent. In 2011, however, Mr. Davis was canceled as an approved attorney. He didn’t let that fact stop him though. He began to fraudulently produce title insurance documents, making it appear that the title insurance company was issuing closing protection letters, commitments and policies for his closings. He also collected funds designated as title insurance premiums, but he never paid those premiums to the title insurance company. He continued to handle closings using fraudulent title insurance documents until his actions were discovered and he was suspended from the practice of law by the South Carolina Supreme Court in 2013. In 2015, Mr. Davis was disbarred.

I suppose I should close by saying don’t do this! Please!

* In the Matter of Davis, S.C. Supreme Court Opinion 27480 (January 21, 2015)

** In the interest of full disclosure, I work for that company.

Closing Attorneys and Paralegals: Want to toss and turn at night?

Read about this costly law firm mistake.

(This case makes my stomach hurt because a developer client of mine once declared bankruptcy. Everything I had done for that client for the prior three years was scrutinized, and I spent some sleepless nights!)

On January 21, 2015, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan decided a direct appeal from a U.S. Bankruptcy Court involving a mistaken UCC-3 termination statement.* This case involves the General Motors bankruptcy.

The facts concern a 2008 payoff by GM to JP Morgan Chase of a $300 million synthetic lease. GM contacted its outside counsel to prepare the necessary documents. A partner assigned the work to an associate and instructed him to prepare a closing checklist and drafts of the necessary documents. The associate asked a paralegal who was unfamiliar with the transaction to perform a UCC search that search identified three UCC-1s. Two of the UCC-1s related to the subject loan. The third, however, was related to a term loan between the same parties. The law firm prepared UCC-3 terminations for all three financing statements.

No one at GM, its law firm, JP Morgan or its law firm noticed the error. When the loan was paid, all three
UCC-3s were filed.

The mistake was not noticed until GM filed bankruptcy in 2009.

In litigation with the unsecured creditors, JP Morgan argued that the third UCC-3 was unauthorized and ineffective because it intended to terminate only the liens that related to the synthetic lease. The Bankruptcy Court agreed on the grounds that no one at JP Morgan or its law firm intended to terminate the third UCC-1.

The Second Circuit certified a question to the Delaware Supreme Court, asking, basically, whether a termination is effective when a lender reviews and knowingly approves a termination statement for filing or whether the lender must intend to terminate the particular security interest. The Delaware Court replied that intent is not necessary, stating, “If parties could be relieved from the legal consequences of their mistaken filings, they would have little incentive to ensure the accuracy of the information contained in their UCC filings.”

The Second Circuit agreed, indicating JP Morgan authorized the termination even though it never intended to.

Lawyers and paralegals: be careful, be careful, be careful! And now try to get a good night’s sleep!

* Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Motors Liquidation Company v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.,U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Docket No. 13-2187, January 21, 2015.

Good News for Small Lenders

CFPB proposed rule change may also benefit South Carolina closing attorneys.

On January 29, the CFPB proposed its ability to repay and qualified mortgage rules to facilitate additional mortgage lending by credit unions and community banks. South Carolina closing attorneys who handle transactions for small lenders could benefit from these proposed rule changes because the business coming from these lenders would increase in volume.

Comments are due on the proposals by March 30. South Carolina closing attorneys should consider commenting positively on this proposal.

“Responsible lending by community banks and credit unions did not cause the financial crisis, and our mortgage rules reflect the fact that small institutions play a vital role in many communities,” said CFPB Director Richard Cordray.

Credit unions and other small lenders have been lobbying for flexibility under the new rules, and this development is considered to be a victory for them.

The proposed rules would expand the definition of “small creditor” by raising the limit on first lien-mortgages from 500 to 2,000, excluding the mortgages held in the portfolios of the creditor and their affiliates. The CFPB said that this change would increase the approximate number of small lenders from 9,700 to 10,400.

Small lender status allows these lenders to make loans where the homeowner’s total debt payments exceed 43 percent of pretax income.

The proposal would also extend the ability of small creditors in rural or underserved areas to issue loans with balloon payments and still have them qualify as qualified mortgage loans. The definition of “rural” was extended to any census block that is not in an urban area as defined by the Census Bureau.

A copy of the proposal can be found at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s website, or by clicking here.

	jonathan Hammer levy on Department of Justice takes la…
	Claire Manning on Department of Justice takes la…
	Dennis on Department of Justice takes la…
	Henrietta Gill on CFPB issues Advisory Opinion o…
	Claire Manning on Richland County passes short-t…

Let's Talk Dirt

A discussion of real estate, SC law, title and all things dirt-y.

Chicago Title Insurance Company